[Openid-specs-ab] Call for adoption of Self-Issued OpenID Provider V2, draft 01

Kristina Yasuda Kristina.Yasuda at microsoft.com
Thu Dec 10 03:15:30 UTC 2020

Thank you for the feedback. This note is about continuing the discussion. Work on SIOP started early this year with two OIDF meet-ups brainstorming the idea. Than we reached consensus on the requirements doc. Discussions on the calls have made progress when there was a concrete written document, so it was the right time to get a draft that reflected the discussions that have occurred throughout the year.

The proposed draft is not final. The idea is to have a concrete document for people to discuss its features and against which tickets can be opened.The final version of the draft would certainly look very different than the current version, likely with great work on Credential Provider/ Discovery drafts encorporated.

I look forward to more feedback on the content of the draft.

Best Regards,

²î³öÈË: Openid-specs-ab <openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net> ¤¬ Tom Jones via Openid-specs-ab <openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net> ¤Î´úÀí¤ÇËÍÐÅ
ËÍÐÅÈÕ•r: 2020Äê12ÔÂ10ÈÕ 5:32
ÍðÏÈ: Mike Jones <Michael.Jones at microsoft.com>
CC: Tom Jones <thomasclinganjones at gmail.com>; openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net <openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net>
¼þÃû: Re: [Openid-specs-ab] Call for adoption of Self-Issued OpenID Provider V2, draft 01

Mike: you misstate the case. This document is still just an internal Microsoft document. What you do with that is not the purview of this committee. My point is that there already is a draft SIOP document that was an accepted OpenID submission and you are putting forth a different document to be voted for acceptance. I object to that.
Peace ..tom

On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 12:19 PM Mike Jones <Michael.Jones at microsoft.com<mailto:Michael.Jones at microsoft.com>> wrote:

To Tony¡¯s comment, I believe there¡¯s agreement that all the functions in the draft are within scope, per previous discussions by the working group.  Yes, it¡¯s possible that we could expand the scope and add more things.  We¡¯ve been discussing our goals since Spring, so I don¡¯t think there are any surprises here.  I applaud Kristina for writing down something concrete that we and developers can iterate on.  I think it¡¯s a positive development.

To Tom¡¯s second comment, it¡¯s been years since I¡¯ve been the subject of a Microsoft conspiracy theory.  It almost makes me nostalgic. ;-)  As for ¡°grabbing the editing function¡±, there¡¯s a much simpler (and true) explanation for why I requested to be an editor:  I¡¯m the primary editor for the Connect specs, and given that this is an extension to them, I requested to be added as an editor so that I could help keep the specification consistent with the other Connect specs ¨C both editorially and semantically.  Tom, you were on the call during which I requested to be added (and during which we added Tobias), and if you had concerns with my participation, you could have voiced them then.

As for recovery and refresh, I believe that those are still under discussion by the working group, and that discussion should continue.  Having an existing draft in no way precludes adding that functionality, should the working group agree on if and how it wants to accomplish those goals.

                                                       Best wishes,

                                                       -- Mike

From: Openid-specs-ab <openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net<mailto:openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net>> On Behalf Of Tom Jones via Openid-specs-ab
Sent: Wednesday, December 9, 2020 9:26 AM
To: Artifact Binding/Connect Working Group <openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net<mailto:openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net>>
Cc: Tom Jones <thomasclinganjones at gmail.com<mailto:thomasclinganjones at gmail.com>>
Subject: Re: [Openid-specs-ab] Call for adoption of Self-Issued OpenID Provider V2, draft 01

I object to the lack of any consideration of recovery and refresh.  I should also note that this seems to be an attempt by Microsoft to grab the editing function. I frankly don't trust them as editors.

Peace ..tom

On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 6:42 PM nadalin--- via Openid-specs-ab <openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net<mailto:openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net>> wrote:

I don¡¯t think a call from adoption should happen before the scope is agreed upon as this is the basics for any standards body to prevent creep and understand exactly what the bounds of the specification are. From the call this week the scope is still in question.

From: Openid-specs-ab <openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net<mailto:openid-specs-ab-bounces at lists.openid.net>> On Behalf Of Kristina Yasuda via Openid-specs-ab
Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2020 6:23 PM
To: 'Artifact Binding/Connect Working Group' <openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net<mailto:openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net>>
Cc: Kristina Yasuda <Kristina.Yasuda at microsoft.com<mailto:Kristina.Yasuda at microsoft.com>>
Subject: [Openid-specs-ab] Call for adoption of Self-Issued OpenID Provider V2, draft 01

Dear AB/Connect WG experts,

We would like to do a call for adoption for a Self-Issued OpenID Provider V2, draft 01 as has been discussed in the Connect WG call. Here is a link to the draft text: https://bitbucket.org/openid/connect/src/master/openid-connect-self-issued-v2-1_0.md<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbitbucket.org%2Fopenid%2Fconnect%2Fsrc%2Fmaster%2Fopenid-connect-self-issued-v2-1_0.md&data=04%7C01%7CKristina.Yasuda%40microsoft.com%7Cb0c0de69959245b2610108d89c81a94f%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637431427999715939%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=HlkJ0caszkpEScEufIlMseBSa8XTvbf5d3gDtI7xTRA%3D&reserved=0>

This draft covers scopes 1, 2 and 5 from 5 proposed SIOP scopes that are being discussedf, with an ongoing effort to reflect proposals regarding Discovery.

Best Regards,


Openid-specs-ab mailing list
Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net<mailto:Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-ab/attachments/20201210/befe12f8/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Openid-specs-ab mailing list